Re: The true crackpots


PD a écrit :

> mluttgens@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > PD wrote:
> >
> > > More to the point, you don't know what SR predicts experimentally, and
> > > you don't know what experimental evidence there is that was found to
> > > test that.
> >
> > This is ridiculous. Open any text book on relativity, and you get the
> > answers.
>
> I was referring to you specifically. You have demonstrated that you do
> not know what SR predicts experimentally, and you are not familiar with
> the published experimental evidence that was found to test that.
>
> >
> > > As I told you before, there is not a *single* theory that is an *exact,
> > > absolute* fit to reality. Not one. Every theory is an approximation
> > > that explains a dominant feature of the physical system's behavior,
> > > while setting aside small effects due to mismatches of the physical
> > > system from the idealized conditions assumed by the model. That is the
> > > way science works.
> >
> > Sure, every theory is an approximation, especially SR.
>
> Not *especially* SR.
>
> >
> > Remember what Vdm almost rightly wrote (for once, he didn't act as a SR
> >
> > crackpot) :
> >
> > "Special relativity is a theory about theoretical inertial frames.
> > In the practical world the theory can be and is used if the
> > region of space and time is sufficiently small for gravitational
> > effects not to have a measurable influence on the outcomes
> > of experiments. That includes labs on the surface of celestial
> > objects, provided the labs are sufficiently small and/or the
> > timeframes are sufficiently short."
> >
> > I am just wondering about the size of a region of space, which
> > is sufficiently small, etc ...
> > One could consider that the gravitational effects existing on
> > Earth become negligible when particles are moving with high
> > velocities and their trajectory is controlled, like in accelerators,
> > where the variation of mass predicted by SR is verified.
> > But then, can we still speak of SR?
>
> Absolutely. Indeed, without the corrections that SR demands,
> accelerators would not work at all, and ignoring the corrections due to
> the gravitational effects makes essentially no difference whatsoever.
>

Yes, SR is only valid for high velocity particles.

Marcel Luttgens

.